BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the opposite parties are financial Companies and used to give loan to the customers for buying vehicles manufactured by their sister concern Mahindra & Mahindra Company. Though their main address is at 570 P.B. Marg. Warly at Mumbai. They are also doing their said business from their Kolkata office namely Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Infinity Bench Mark building, Salt Lake, Sector V Kolkata 91 and Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Ward No. 18 Salgechia, P.S. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. The claim of compensation and/or redressal of grievances of the complainant does not exceed Rs. 20,0000/-. The Complainant relates to letting vehicles to various companies for using the vehicle for official purpose on rent for last few years. Several Correspondences were made in between the parties for 2013 and on each occasion assurance for repairing and altering of parts was given, but the respondents did not keep their assurance. As a result the concerned company was compelled to release the said vehicle namely scoria Ex. Vide No. WB-22/V-3751 along with one AC Sumo ( WB-30C/8980) for which the complainant has to bear severe loss of money for last few years amounting to Rs. 12,45,500/-. On 15.03.2018 one demand notice was received from the Ld. Advocate of the opposite parties claiming Rs. 5,84,045/- against the recovery of loan of the vehicle namely Scorpio Ex. Being aggrieved with such legal notice, your complainant is compelled to file this case for redressal and get relief which is made within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The cause of action arose on and from 15.03.2018 and each dates thereafter. The relevant correspondence an affixed herewith which are to be marked as follows:-
Correspondence letter dated 06.01.2013 as “A”
Correspondence letter dated 20.02.2013 as “B”
Correspondence letter dated 03.03.2012 and 18.02.2013 as “C”
Correspondence letter dated 07.10.2011 as “D”
Advocate’s letter dated 15.03.2018 as ‘E”
Correspondence letter dated 17.02.2013 as “F”
In the above facts and circumstances of the case the complainant prays for the following reliefs>
Financial for negligence of the respondent. No. 1 & 2 to the tune of Rs. 12,45,500/-
Damages for hampering of the business of vehicles on rent to ABG Kolkata Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Costs of the present proceeding.
Other reliefs if any
Upon notice the opposite parties have resisted the claims of the complainant by filing written version. The sum and substance of the written version are that the Instant complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and as such it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no locus stand to initiate the present proceedings against this O.P. The actual fact is that the complainant had applied for a commercial loan; he did not pay any installments amount and thus committed default of payment of installments. As there was no other alternative the Ops were compelled to draw up the Arbitration proceeding and the Ld. Arbitrator was pleased to pass final order dated 24.12.2013, amounting to Rs. 5,84,045/- along with interest. The complainant received one letter dated 15.03.2018 about the said Arbitration award, after that the complainant filed this instant case for wrong full gain. The complainant did not file any document to establish his loses and other claim. The OPs submit that the Op’s never intentionally caused any unnecessary harassment to the complainant. It reveals from the aforesaid circumstances that the complainant for his wrongful gain with a malafide intention and ulterior motive filed this case against this O.Ps.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law? 2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
In Re; Points No- 1 & 2.
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully examined and evaluated the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint and written version thereof, alongwith evidence i.e, examination in chief on affidavit, questionnaire put forth by the ops ,reply by the complainant and documents filed by both parties as annexures.
It is evident from the averments of the complaint that the main cause of action against the ops arose on and from 15.03.2018 and each dates thereafter. On 15.03.2018 complainant received one Advocate’s letter on behalf of the ops having a demand of Arbitration award of Rs. 5,84,045/-. This is a consumer redressal forum; the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this forum to seek any relief against the demand of Arbitration Award as there is prescribed Appellate Authority for challenging the validity or testing the correctness of the Award. As such no cause of action can arise upon the bundle of facts relating to notice dated 15.03.2018; therefore the instant case is misconceived on that score.
Now coming to another limb of the grievances, it appears that the complainant meant to state that the complaint did not get proper service of his vehicles which he allegedly purchased from the ops in the year 2012. According to complainant he made correspondence vide Correspondence letter dated 20.02.2013 as “B”, Correspondence letter dated 03.03.2012 and 18.02.2013 as “C” Correspondence letter dated 07.10.2011 as “D” and Correspondence letter dated 17.02.2013 as “F. So, it is evident that the last correspondence was made on 20.02. 2013. Since 20.02.2013 till the date of filing of this case 2018 i.e after five years the complainant remained silent. The facts narrated in the complaint do not reflect the date of purchase of the vehicle, dates of visit with the vehicle in the service centre for service. He found his cause of action on 15.03.2018 when he received the demand notice. He filed the case after five years since 20.02.2013 which is beyond the statutory period of limitation of two years. Therefore, the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and in law. Moreover, the complainant has not been able to file any tax invoice of purchase showing the warranty period. The annexure -4 letter sent by one Kaushik Ghosal on 20.02.2013 to the complainant, it was apprised of the complainant on behalf of the ops that as the vehicle did not avail of the periodical maintenance on time and usage of poor quality of fuel vehicle suffered fault. The ops kept sample of fuel used in the vehicle preserved for examination; there was every scope for the complainant to establish that good quality of fuel was used. With a view to countering the said versions of the ops the complainant did not file any document of any periodical service within the warranty period. Letter of star India agency also expresses that vehicle did not report for 2nd and 3rd free service for which complainant was not eligible for replacement of injectors under warranty. The complainant failed to counter the said versions of the ops. The complainant has failed to prove his case factually too. The complainant has failed to prove the case. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Thus both the points are decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/142 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
